I’m sorry but I completely disagree with this. You believe convicted murders should be able to go to a gun store and buy an automatic rifle? You believe big corporations should be able to dump toxic waste into our environment to no end? You believe it is ok for someone to drive without insurance so they have 0 financial liability in the event of an accident. I think you really overestimate the average intelligence and essential goodness of people.
You can define it much more clearly. Those 4 principals mean different things to people with different moral values. You need to essentially define what is morally good or bad (laws). So that those who violate our society’s moral values would be punished fairly. If I was a lifelong criminal of robbery, rape, murder, etc, and I was a free man at the time; My morals would be far different than those of natural good. Again, I agree with those being good principals, but you absolutely need to set out more specific definitions for specific situations. Otherwise the law and judgement of it would be completely arbitrary and almost anarchist. Think of the movie Idiocracy and how their court works. That’s what I imagine it would be like. I also agree there are a lot of BS licenses out there and bureaucratic garbage. Such as a fishing license.
Leaving the EU is the BEST guarantee to get a much worse situation.
Now there is a legal framework that is REQUIRED to adhere to which has some basic rationale underpinning it.
Like Human Rights including protection & privacy of data.
Leaving the EU also breaks that requirement. Hence adopting policies to invade privacy under EU legal framwork will be a mine field.
Outside of the EU it will be a walk in the park.
Without getting too political, there is only one example of that viz. the UK - and the UK already has an anti-privacy regime, including laws similar to those that the EU is contemplating here. They passed those laws independently of the EU, without any obvious encouragement from the EU, years before the EU will do so, and while a member of the EU. And now, no longer being in the EU, I don’t observe that the UK is rushing to repeal those laws.
It would be difficult to conclude from the above that leaving the EU will solve anything but it is of course a very poor sample size .
In my opinion the only thing that protects human rights is the underlying culture. If the government in a member state is not of a mind to protect human rights then that failure to protect human rights will happen whether inside or outside the EU.
You could perhaps argue that one member state might be out of step with the bulk of the member states. For example, one member state may have a culture of failing to protect human rights that is much worse than the EU average. In that case it might leave the EU in order to be able to (legally) clamp down further on human rights but that certainly isn’t what you had in mind.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, one member state may have a much stronger culture of protecting human rights that is much better than the EU average. In that case it might leave the EU because it sees the EU as sliding into authoritarianism. However I see no evidence at the current time that this is a realistic scenario.
Again, what I think will actually happen … individual member state governments will pass laws along the proposed lines if they want to, or not, and they would do so, or not, whether inside or outside the EU.
(Speakong from the US) Nobody can do this, automatic weapons are largely illegal (unless you pay a lot of money in taxes). Also I legally own two guns and have not had to acquire any licenses.
Lack of insurance does not mean a lack of liability, it just means the owner of the car has to come up with the money versus some company. Also, not a license.
Arguably, you would be punished fairly when the victims and families of the victims of your crimes catch up with you and visit upon you the same violence you visited upon them.
At any rate, conjecture like this (yours and mine) requires making an assumption about the behavior of a society at large, something we can’t accurately do. But we’ve illustrated part of the gamut one could run doing so.
gotta check back in … 2-4 … 5? whatever days, or more, if i count with the unknown and my incoming emails and the like (228 threads now to read, nasty firefox issues and xmus held me up)…
btw a forked topic in a form like “new topic (was: eu …)”, with two links to connect the topics can be fine to me, as one, but i really like the brainstorming here, and i didnt know the lenght of the semi-off-topic ahead of time, so i didnt initiate it, but i guess it didnt kill the thread, and it is related enough, while an own thread wouldnt make that less of a hot topic, and i plan to replay already to a bunch of things…
btw/2 lets play it! im in! i will live the same stuff, but i wont care about nonsense and i will use my words to rise or to fail, to oppose with anything but truth, with full responsibility, arisen head, and i dare to face with any1, and to be a martyr, in that case. if i know anything serious about God, then i got the green lamp to do so, not even today, but whatever, if im plain crazy, then it will be a pleasure to live my imaginary role to bring a better world, at least i will try! wish me good luck dear fellas, i will need it!
happy new year every1, with a long afterparty and all the earthly goods!
boldog új évet mindenkinek, hosszú afterparty-val és minden földi jóval!
nah, bro’ they’ve taken all the still remaining earthly goods for themselves and left us the scraps … that’s why there’s so much dis-ease, stress and mind-zuck-ing going on … Happy New Fear 2021 !!!
Well in WhatApp, to a lesser extend Signal it can be lifted by adding a hidden (non-shown member) to a group.
so then it can be lifted by using the hidden members account.
There can even be a whole bunch of hidden members (f.e. one for each “secret” service that wants to monitor).
That works for group communication but does it work for communication between two people?
I suppose it works for two people if two people communicating is always treated as a group of two. However all this really means is that E2EE hasn’t been implemented properly. With proper E2EE the two parties negotiate the necessary keys and no other party has those keys.
you know that’s actually pretty funny. in a very SAD way …
if i try asking something important with the mask on, then whoever i’m speaking to has a really tough time concentrating to give the proper answer … it’s like seeing my mouth move has a significant importance on how people understand speech
but yeah ! with the mask on a pretty significant part of the human anatomy is removed which says TONS about offline ‘communication’ …
Domain from where people could send open letter to goverment about encryption.
Withou encryption, the computers are utterly hackable and unsecurable. There must be signatures and encrypted package to maintain control structures of update and communication network.
Contact me, I’ll writte open letter, you create domain which can send mail to friends.
QAK-Is there any risk of collision?
QAK, that’s sound, that ducks made for their anti collision system. It’s pinnacle of understanding of signal interpretation.
Blacks Law only works if the government accepts it. In Canada, they don’t. Many have tried dodging taxes, drivers license, and a fellow I know bought a whole bunch of computer stuff, and charged it to the Bank of Canada, and it worked, that once. Blacks Law only help people quote a section of old law, and nothing more.
All a quote from that does is waste 5 minutes of the court’s time and court continues without it. A solution might be to elect the right people and change the laws, not force the issue through the courts because the courts have what Black Law aficionados don’t have - a non-Blacks Law government that is backed by it’s own military, police, and best paid lawyers in the country.
.
